Total posts: 8,861
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It is an interesting thing the way you word things -
Factually , you mean?
almost as though you are trying to get a rise out of me
Playing victim again!
whenever you say the Messiah was to the Jews - and not to Christians.
That's what I mean by stating facts. Jesus was a Jew. He is said to have come as the messiah to his people - Jews. Not Christians. LOOK!>>>Jesus stated: “He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep [ JEWS ] of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) But nowhere does he mention the word Christian or Christians. Or are you are going to contradict that by telling me that Jew in those days actually meant Christian but the JEWS of the time didn't know it! ? while also forgetting that IS_RA_EL were gods "own chosen and treasured" people.
Honestly, I think it is more of a bugbear for you than for me.
I don't have a problem with stating facts.
The original Christians were Jews.
And there it is! Jews where Christians and they didn't know it. hahahahhahahahhahahahhahah
And even today there are thousands of Jews who consider themselves Christians as well as Jews.
Is that one of your desperate wild claims that you cannot prove? And even if there was a ring of truth to that, we are not talking "today" though, are we you snide little man. We are talking Jesus time.
My take on the Messiah is in line with the promise God made to Eve and then to Abraham.
Well my take is that you /Christians have been trying to push a square peg into the round hole for over 2000 years.
All the nations shall be blessed through you.
Indeed all nations: The twelve tribes that made up those twelve nations of the time.
Abraham was not a Jew. Nor was Eve.
Well that depends on which JEWISH scholar you choose to believe, doesn't it? For instance Yehuda Shurpin tells us that "Abraham was the first Jew". I believe Abraham was a Hebrew ( the other side of the river) from Mesopotamia as Joshua makes clear, and only after he settled in Canaan. Syrian text refer to him as Hibiru , I don't care what he was, is all I know is that he wasn't Christian!
[A]But it is my understanding that to be a JEW (at the time of Jesus anyway) was simply to be of/born in Judaea. And maybe at the time they a good reason for that. And have you forgotten that the Samarians were regarded as a "different kind of Jew" to those born of Judaea? The story of the good Samaritan should explain this, if you have ever taken the time to read the damn story for yourself!
But then again god decided on a name change for HIS PEOPLE , didn't he? He decided he din't like the old name of Hebrew and decided to tell Jacob his name was now IS_RA_EL and that was that.
God sent the Messiah to save both the Jew and the Gentile.
The gentile was simply someone lost to the faith and in this case, the JEWISH faith. Why do you keep forgetting this>>>>>“He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of IS-RA -EL.” (Matthew 15:24). That verse must really piss you off, because it cannot be escaped, and I am only stating what your scriptures state. I didn't rewrite it or change it or give it any other "meaning" or indeed have to invent that verse to make my argument. I will now wait for you to explain how the word - Israel over 2000+ years ago actually meant - Christian.
This had nothing to do with race, save for the destination, and everything to do with faith.
You really are confused. Christianity is not a race no more than Islam is a race ( as much as people want it to be. There are Western government trying very hard to make a certain religion a "race" and god help us all if they ever do.) AND neither is nationality a race. No.Nationality simply means of which nation one belongs. And no. Race has everything to do with the colour of ones skins and share certain distinctive physical traits . SEE [A] above.
Interestingly it was only very recently that Egypt changed its law about nationality and who was deemed to be a "true" Egyptian. Now , as long as a child born to a Egyptian mother or father can become an Egyptian.SEE [A] above.
Hence, everytime you bag the Christian it is not a slight on me or my thinking.
And it is not intended to be. I am just stating the fact that there were no Christians in Jesus time and Jesus never once utters the word Christian through out the WHOLE of the scriptures.
Jesus was the savior of the World, not just the Jews.
That's not what Jesus himself says though , is it. LOOK>>>> He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of IS-RA -EL.” (Matthew 15:24).
You problem is that you simply haven't got a clue as to what is really going on in those New Testament scriptures.. It is all to with a power struggle a religiopolitical struggle and nothing else. Just like it is at every transition of "the age". Jesus makes this clear too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
God chose the people of Israel to be his people of destination for the messiah.
Indeed, and they would be Jews ?
Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel. 2 Samuel 7:10
For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession.Deuteronomy 14:2
For the Lord has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel for His own possession. Psalm 135:4
Nope, not a sniff of the words - Christians my chosen people.
Created:
Posted in:
What does the bible say about being qualified to baptise someone?Well I suppose it depends upon what baptism is? Whether there is only one reason for baptism, or whether there are various reasons for baptism?So you want to go through all that shite again. The bible makes it clear the reason for baptism as I have shown you multiple times here on this thread here #13.The bible doesn't even mention any other reason for baptism. So lets not go down the rout of what the bible doesn't say.LOL! I have said before that baptism refers to lots of things. You rejected that - never proved it of course but rejected it.
I din't have to prove a thing. It was you that made the claim without a single piece of supporting evidence.
Baptism does refer to lots of things in the NT.
Another unsubstantiated claim. just saying it doesn't prove it!
Get out a concordance, do your own work.
I am not here to prove fkn claims that YOU make and have made!
sometimes it is used for ceremonial washing of the hands.Really! and the biblical evidence for this is where?Matthew 15: 1-2. Look at the Greek dear Stephen and not just the English. The greek word here is baptism where we see the word wash in English.
We are talking baptism here as in the washing away of ones sins . We are not talking the practice of ones hygiene and ablutions. As you perfectly know well!
Sometimes it is used as an example of something more.And you have a biblical example of this do you?Hebrews 9: 10. Mathew 28:18-20. 1 Cor 10:1-5.
Hebrews 9:10.
More about personal hygiene
Mathew 28:18-20
28- 18-20Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Yes! That will be the washing away of ones sins - kind of baptism. Well done . I suppose if you throw enough shite while blindfolded and facing in the approximate direction , you are bound to hit...….. on what it is we are actually discussing here.; baptism to wash away ones sins as per scripture.
1 Cor 10:1-5.
"Baptism in the sea / water". So this mentions baptism by water in the sea. Which resembles the baptism rituals performed by John in the water of the Jordan - to wash away sins. which is not that different is it? AND I actually believe Jesus did this himself in the sea of Galilee but the scriptures are so vague and ambiguous on the matter that I would never be stupid enough stick my neck out and say I can prove it.
So again you haven't proven a damn thing. In your desperation to make things fit, you have just made shite up and are now trying to tell me that these verses somehow prove that baptism stands also for "something other than just washing away sins".. Your full of shite and this is the desperation I spoke of earlier here> #6
I ask questions of you because your questions are vague. Speak more plainly and perhaps we might decipher what answer you are looking for.It is a straight forward enough question. What qualifies one to baptise another? Or to put it simpler for you, what qualifications does one need to be able to perform the sacred ritual of baptism?No not really. This is why I asked the question. In the NT we know that John and his disciples baptized.
Do we? . Lets see your evidence that John's disciples performed baptism rituals
Jesus' disciples did not baptize prior to his ascension. Nor did Jesus personally baptize prior to his ascension. Jesus instructed his apostles in Matthew 28 to go out and baptize - and then in Acts we have examples of the apostles baptizing and then those set apart for ministry - such as Philip and Timothy - and Barnabas and Paul and Apollos. We don't see just anyone doing it. And we never see any females doing it.
Nothing to do with the questions. I am not asking about Jesus, his disciples, or if "females" performed baptism. this is just more filibustering that has fk all to do with the OP and the questions asked. IF YOU DON'T KNOW THEN SIMPLY SAY SO!
We don't have any NT examples of any Pharisee baptizing although clearly performing cleansing ceremonies.
Irrelevant!
We certainly don't see any non-believers baptizing.
Irrelevant!
Jesus ultimately baptized the church with the Holy Spirit - Pentecost. This is what John the Baptist was referring to in his message.
Irrelevant!
In summary in the Christian church - it seems clear then that qualification requires a belief in Christ. It requires being set apart by the church or the leaders in the church.
Well you certainly took your time didn't you? Now show us the evidence . - "a belief in Christ", pretty obvious, and "set apart" - I will take that to mean not a simple parishioner but an elevated member of the church such as a priest maybe? So what would his qualifications be apart from having to be obviously a Christian? And would he have had to be baptised himself?
For the Jewish religion - the OT is the reference we would have to use.
Which is what? Are the qualification different in the OT and the ones not even mentioned in the NT? And does the OT even mention the qualifications one needs to perform baptism?
It appears to me not only do you not know that there is only one single reason for baptism, but you also no nothing about baptism and those that baptise. Which is pretty astounding seeing that you portray yourself as somewhat an authority on matters biblical.
I fear that the only biblical matters that you are an authority on are the ones that you invent and the ones that you interpret to fit your narrative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
To rely on faith alone is simply backward thinking for the lazy the weak minded and the desperately lonely and insecureLOL! You believe evolution on faith alone.
I haven't said that. Stick to putting words into the biblical authors and characters mouths, and not mine.
You believe in the big bang theory on faith alone.
I haven't said that either. Stick to putting words into the mouths of biblical authors & characters and not mine
You believe there is no God on faith alone.
I haven't said that either. My, you are one confused little silly man aren't you? I think it best that you stick to putting words into the mouths of biblical authors & characters and not mine.
You ignore the realities of life.
it is not often you'er right....... but you are wrong again.
And you call us lazy.
I do. Along with backward thinking , weak minded, desperately lonely and insecure.
I suppose I will got to the fires of hell for saying that about believers , although, Jesus' blood sacrifice tells me I am saved or has god changed his mind on that too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Again , no evidence. You never ever support what come from you own mouth do you.i already did. you don't read much do you?
Which is still much more than you. I read enough to know that the jury that convicted them consisted of four white Americans, four black Americans, three Hispanic Americans, and one Asian. Were they racist against these Black & Latino boys?
I also read read enough to be able to ask you asked you how many of the PROSECUTION witnesses where white and how many white black?
you responded to a post from a year ago
That doesn't alter that fact that you admit that you are talking about something that you imply you cannot recall. Do you not see how fkn stupid you sound and probably are.
Find me a case where he advocated for executing white teenagers who had been proven to be innocent.I don't have to . I haven't claimed he did or didn't. It is you that has made all the unsubstantiated claims.They are not unsubstantiated. I just didn't realize you were too lazy to an absolute basic amount of effort.Yes they are unsubstantiated. You haven't proven anything... at all. When one makes a claim , one is also required to support that claim with facts and evidence. You have failed. Instead you deviously claimed Trump - as in the US President - was involved in a racist scandal when it was his father at a time when Donald the President was just a boy.this is getting sad. Trump paid for ad's to be run attacking the central park 5. they were innocent. He continued advocating they were guilty even after DNA evidence proved they were innocent. And I already provided evidence of trump's illegally lying to black people to keep them out of his buildings he was managing.
You simply lied about the President and got caught lying about the President.
One of those cases that you put forward was about his father , Fred and not the 17 years old son Donald, now president of the USA. So here you lied purposefully while intending to blindside anyone that may have been to idle too read your so called ' proof ' for themselves.what are you talking about? Those practices went on for years, which included while donald was managing the buildings. I have no idea why you are suggesting this happened once when donald was 17.
I am not suggestion that at all. I simply want you to produce the evidence that PRESIDENT Donal Trump is racist . I didn't ask about his fathers racism in 50's America where, if the story be true, is clear racism.
But saying someone is a racist because they happen to have an opinion on a verdict of a case involving blacks, is not racist, as much as you want to believe it is.. If anyone here is racist in this case it you spreading racist lies and bullshit .
And it turns out that the real rapist who also beat this young woman nearly to death after raping her just happened to be , 'different coloured' .Was this then a racist attack on this defenseless white woman because she was white? Or just a random opportunistic predatory attack that could have happened to any woman of any colour that happened to be there at that time and that place?you've completely missed my point.
Just answer the question
Show me cases where he did that with white kids.
I don't have to. I haven't made any claims one way or the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Well they were able to write and keep meticulous records.They might have known, probably did. I did some research on this very topic a couple of years ago, and couldn't find anything relating to the Sumerians knowing about the precession. But that doesn't really mean anything. I haven't read all the texts, don't have enough information. So I am taking back what I said earlier.
The Sumerians had hundreds of what those historians that study the ancients and archaeologist call " firsts ". In fact I found it interesting that one archaeologists ( name escapes me) remarked that with all the "sudden" firsts that sprang up in Mesopotamia and Summer in particular, " it was as if their civilisation had simply dropped from the sky all at once". Which it probably did if we are to believe the Sumerian accounts of the their lords "coming down" and the "first" civilisation.
So I am taking back what I said earlier.
Which was what?
“Where is He who has been born King of the Jews [not Christians]? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.Matthew 2:2” They knew exactly what they were talking about, so did the one they were speaking to.What is the star? The only "star in the East" I know of is sirius.
Well when it is researched deeper we see that this "star" was also referred to as star sign rising. - accompanied by a shooting star : a comet and referred to by many these days as the "Star of Bethlehem" (its debatable if there was even such a place of that name at the time). We understand comets to be - colloquially, shooting or falling stars. These NT"wise men/ Magi" are thought to have been astronomers from the East and also say in various bible;
"we seen his star rising"
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%202%3A2 and they couldn't have "followed" a star that appears static in the night sky.
What ever way we approach this. There can be no doubt that sky was important enough (if not crucial) in determining who's time it was to rule. This is a tradition- indeed a law- the goes back thousands of years before Jesus and right back to when "kingship was handed down" according the the Sumerians.
And in case you were wondering, I am not a religious person by any means of the word.
(A) Ask yourself this. Why, in this day and age, why would my own Queen of England (who also happens to be the head of the Church of England) have her own observatory and Her own astronomer and astrologer?
(B) And why, in this day and age would the Vatican have the same. Indeed, the Vatican have observatories and telescopes in many places around the world. They spend millions of their poor parishioners donations on observing the sky. Why! What are they doing peering into gods living room?
I think you now know the answer to both A & B above. don't you?
If you don't, maybe the Catholics here , indeed any Christian, can explain for us why their respective churches like to spend the hard earned donations of their flock on such toys, when the millions donated should be given to "the poor"?
Vatican Observatory Research Group (VORG),
I believe this is the Vatican's most recent development
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I don't know that the sumerians knew anything about it.
Well they were able to write and keep meticulous records.
I do know about the precession,the houses, the ages.
Good , then you have a decent head start and maybe will come to realize the significance of all the astronomical references in the NT that surround the Christ that many Christians do not understand the significance of. Such as when the wise men/magi said: "“Where is He who has been born King of the Jews [not christians]? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.Matthew 2:2” They knew exactly what they were talking about, so did the one they were speaking to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
So what is tablet 7?
For the best part and among other things it is an explanation to a son (Marduk) from a father (Ea Enki) who is explaining what the sky looked like when they (Anannage, the Shining Ones) - the biblical Anakim "first came down" and the beginning of "celestial time" and when and how they had mapped and divided the skies into "stations" or what we call houses of approximately 2160 years per house, although some houses do overlap.
It can be a complicated affair when studied only casually but the gist simply put is that each house had/has a ruler or a lord . The ruler of the house at the top of the hour (lets call it the Bull) that appears as a backdrop to the sun on a spring equinox was lord of lords over the other elven houses. Then, with the passing of the 2160 year cycle, the celestial clock would now be the Ram and the new lord of lords, and the Bull would go to the back of the que. As I mentioned it has been shown many times that the out going house doesn't relinquish power and control without a fight.
Depending on your interest, here's is a decent book that is well worth a read.
This too is an uncomplicated read, not to mention interesting and it also covers the naming of the "stations" and the 2160 cycle.:
E. A. Wallis Budge's classic work, Babylonian Life and History is another you may want to ponder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Wild imagination and a pond [..........] it's factually correct as far as anyone actually knows.
Or a river. Or a lake. Or a sea. Or an ocean. Or a stream. Or a tub of bath water. Or a Font even. And all without the slightest bit of imagination. No Vic, one only needs to"believe" they are cleansing or being cleansed, Vic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Was Mary a Levite? I have not heard this thought before.
Yes, I can believe that.
Although you have said on another thread that you believe Jesus was a prophet, Priest & king.#2 ( I too happen to believe the latter two). And I thought that it was common knowledge to know all Christians that to be a true priest in those times, one had to be of the family of Arron, said to be a Levite or " of the tribe of Levi". And wasn't the priestly covenant, the biblical covenant given by god to Aaron and his descendants only? In other words only those of the line of Arron could be Priests as those of the line of David "the lion of Judah" could only be kings ( aka sons of god).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes vic. You have said so twice already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Christians can't be bothered repeating the same things over and over.
Christians do repeat themselves over and over. Maybe they are of the belief that saying something often enough will make it true and factual.
What is the point when persons such as you just write your own rules dismissing the the evidence before your eyes.
I am still waiting for evidence for many of your claims that you brag about always being able to support but rarely do so.
As I have said before the unscientific endeavor of the critic is as astounding in its stupidity as it is in its failure to understand simple logic.
I do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but I simply distrust anything that contradicts science and outrages reason.
To rely on faith alone is simply backward thinking for the lazy, the weak minded and the desperately lonely and insecure . But that is only my opinion...… or is it?
Do the scriptures have anything about - 'faith alone`, Tradesecret?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Indeed, a man, a Jewish man. A man that believed he was rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem. king of the Jews, not Christians.I smile at your attempt to try and get under my skin.
Smile away, but it is simply a case of you not accepting facts.
Jesus was a Jew not a Christian. He preached at the Jewish synagogues not Christian churches. He preached to Jews not Christians. He was King of the Jews, not Christians. He was a Jewish rabbi not a Christian priest. Not once does Jesus say the word Christian. The whole of the New Testament only uses the word 3 times and well after Jesus is dead and gone and the Old Testament doesn't mention the word Christian, at all. So I think you have been barking up too many of the wrong cedars of Lebanon.
Jesus is the king of the universe.
opinion.
Hence he is king of all people - whether they believe in him or not.
opinion.
Ignorance is not an excuse in our lifetime - and it won't be either on judgment day.
" excuse" for what"? Why are you threatening me with "judgement day"? What do I have to fear about "judgement day"? What is "judgment day"? When will "judgment day" arrive? What will happen to the "ignorant" on "judgment day"?
Start a thread and we can discuss "judgment day"
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Lots of commentators raise various distinctions.
You are not lots of commentators. You have made a distinct claim that "cursing " in the biblical ( Leviticus 20: 9) sense means a threat to kill ones parents.
I have provided a mix of ancient and modern scholars.
And I needed only one one to show you to be talking shite.
Curse seems to more than mere words.
It is according to only you. And to only you it means "a threat to kill ones parents". Where is your evidence!?
Blackstones Legal Commentaries...............Poole, M. (1853). Annotations upon the Holy Bible (Vol. 1, p. 241). New York: Robert Carter and Brothers.......................Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 175). Peabody: Hendrickson. etc etc etc etc etc etc
The rest of your absolute pointless comments focuses on the punishment for "cursing ones parents", which we already know because the bible makes it clear, perfectly clear in fact that the punishment is death. None of the comments or quotes above address your own claim.
What your absolute pointless comments don't focus on is your claim that to "curse ones parents" in the biblical sense "means a threat to kill ones parents", as you claimed. So I am going to take it that even after all of your pointless efforts of of searching out comments that state that which we already know, you have nothing at all to support your OWN ridiculous claim.
You simply have said this to make the punishment fit the ' crime' . and lets not forget, you are the one that has said, - " What I do think is that when God kills infants it is justified" #14.. My god, how vile. And you still haven't offered one single incident of god "justifiably killing infants or explained these actions that you believe justifies god to commit infanticide?
So thanks Stephen.
What a patronising nonentity you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
What does the bible say about being qualified to baptise someone?Does the bible teach us the requirements that are needed that gives one authority to cleanse one of his or her sins as the baptist did?Don't the Pharisees ask a similar question about Jesus?
Yes they do.
And does not Jesus then throw the question back to them? Mark 11:27-33.
No. What Jesus does is not answer the question. Instead, Jesus thought that he had answered the question by posing one of his own in response. And never did he answer the original question, a bit like yourself.
What does the bible say about being qualified to baptise someone?Well I suppose it depends upon what baptism is? Whether there is only one reason for baptism, or whether there are various reasons for baptism?
So you want to go through all that shite again. The bible makes it clear the reason for baptism as I have shown you multiple times here on this thread here #13.
The bible doesn't even mention any other reason for baptism. So lets not go down the rout of what the bible doesn't say.
In the NT the word baptism is used in different senses
No they are not and there are no different reasons for it either. Whether it be baptised in spirit or water, the sole reason for this ritual as far as the scriptures are concerned is all to do with sinner, sin, sins or sinning;
" repentance for the forgiveness of sins"(Mark 1:4-5) .
"a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" . (Luke 3:3)
"in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". (Acts 2:38)
"baptized and wash your sins away". (Acts 22:16)
sometimes it is used for ceremonial washing of the hands.
Really! and the biblical evidence for this is where?
Sometimes it is used as an example of something more.
And you have a biblical example of this do you?
Sometimes it is connected with circumcision.
And which NT verses mention baptism in relation to circumcision?
Sometimes it is connected with the heart.
I see, and you are going to offer the biblical evidence for all your above claims are you?
But regardless, none of your claims so far have answered the op, have they? What you have chosen to do instead is dance around and made claims without a single drop of biblical evidence and that have nothing to do with the op.
I ask questions of you because your questions are vague. Speak more plainly and perhaps we might decipher what answer you are looking for.
It is a straight forward enough question. What qualifies one to baptise another? Or to put it simpler for you, what qualifications does one need to be able to perform the sacred ritual of baptism?
If you are asking merely about John the Baptist, then say so?
[A] No. I am asking about what qualifies one person to baptise another. I cannot see why it is you are struggling with this very simply question.
If you are asking about Jesus then say so?
See[A] above
If you are asking about the ceremonial cleanings that occurred both in the OT and the NT, then say so?
See[A] above
If you are asking about the Christian teachings as identified in the NT, then say so?
See[A] above
If you are asking about a general understanding of what the BIBLE says about ALL
How do you keep missing it? I am asking about >>>>>>>QUALIFICATIONS NEEDED <<<<<<<, are you blind??????? I am asking at post #1 above _ Does the bible teach us the requirements that are needed that gives one authority to cleanse one of his or her sins as the baptist did? #1
Created:
Posted in:
This appears to be to with Trump senior when young Donald was only 17. You are devious bastard aren't you. Donald Trump hired many black people even his personal body guard and driver was black.these policies continued for decades, including while donald was managing the buildings.
Again , no evidence. You never ever support what come from you own mouth do you.
I forget which horrible thing I was referring to here. He has done so many racist things I lose track.How convenient.lmao, you responded to a comment I made like a year ago. Trump does horrible shit on a weekly basis. that was like 100 scandals ago.
Then you shouldn't just throw shite out there without knowing wtf you are talking about. Which Trump are you talking about this time? Fred the father of or Donald the son? And again, let us see some examples of this "horrible shit".
Trump advocated for executing black teenagers when there was little evidence of their guilt (the central park 5).This didn't answer my question and you have not offered no proof of your claim AGAIN!He continued even after they had been proven innocent.Wheres your evidence?If you google trump and central park 5 you get dozens of articles. take your pick. here is one picked at random.
I will, you can count on that.
Find me a case where he advocated for executing white teenagers who had been proven to be innocent.I don't have to . I haven't claimed he did or didn't. It is you that has made all the unsubstantiated claims.They are not unsubstantiated. I just didn't realize you were too lazy to an absolute basic amount of effort.
Yes they are unsubstantiated. You haven't proven anything... at all. When one makes a claim , one is also required to support that claim with facts and evidence. You have failed. Instead you deviously claimed Trump - as in the US President - was involved in a racist scandal when it was his father at a time when Donald the President was just a boy.
You won't forget that proof I asked you for, now , will you.there are tons of articles on it. take your pick. I linked one above.
So you have chose two of alleged incidents of racism that you alleged come from the President of the USA Donald Trump. One of those cases that you put forward was about his father , Fred and not the 17 years old son Donald, now president of the USA. So here you lied purposefully while intending to blindside anyone that may have been to idle too read your so called ' proof ' for themselves.
And it appears that although you are correct that Donald Trump - going by your own link - has not apologised for his opinions, your so called ' proof ' of racism also has this to say
from your own link:
“You have people on both sides of that. They admitted their guilt. If you look at Linda Fairstein [the discredited prosecutor who oversaw the case] and if you look at some of the prosecutors, they think the city should have never settled that case. So, we’ll leave it at that.”
So here we simply have to schools of opinions, one for and the other against the verdict and whether "the city should have settled". Now is all you have to do is show the racism of those many opinions as I asked you to do originally.
And here is a little bit of research that YOU failed to mention: The jury consisted of four white Americans, four black Americans, three Hispanic Americans, and one Asian American. Was their verdicts racist or did they accept the evidence as presented at the trail at the time? How many of the prosecution witnesses were white and how many were black, do you even know?
And it turns out that the real rapist who also beat this young woman nearly to death after raping her just happened to be , 'different coloured' . Was this then a racist attack on this defenseless white woman because she was white? Or just a random opportunistic predatory attack that could have happened to any woman of any colour that happened to be there at that time and that place?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Not letting black people live in his buildings? that isn't racist?No. And you haven't shown this to be the case of colour.Trump and his father both discriminated against black people. They lied to them to keep them from living in their buildings by telling them the rent was higher than it really was or by telling them the apartment was taken if black people asked. Here is an article about it.
This appears to be to with Trump senior when young Donald was only 17. You are devious bastard aren't you. Donald Trump hired many black people even his personal body guard and driver was black.
Telling american born people of color that they are from failed countries, that isn't racist?Did he? Who did he say that about?I forget which horrible thing I was referring to here. He has done so many racist things I lose track.
How convenient.
Pushing for the death penalty for innocent black teenagers. that isn't racist?Many innocent whites are have been convicted and sentenced and executed. It wasn't because they were white, was it?Trump advocated for executing black teenagers when there was little evidence of their guilt (the central park 5).This didn't answer my question and you have not offered no proof of your claim AGAIN!He continued even after they had been proven innocent.
Wheres your evidence?
Find me a case where he advocated for executing white teenagers who had been proven to be innocent.
I don't have to . I haven't claimed he did or didn't. It is you that has made all the unsubstantiated claims.
You won't forget that proof I asked you for, now , will you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I reread your original post and your new one. I get it now. I have some things to research now. Thank you.Is tablet 7 from enuma elish?
No. That would be the ancient Babylonian creation epic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
You're supposed to have grey hair before you are properly qualified to worry about hypotheticals.Young people would never get married if this was not true.True, but Trump gives even 20-somethings gray hairs, so I still get my Worrier License. Bam.
Can the same be said for sleepy's leg hair?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Not letting black people live in his buildings? that isn't racist?
No. And you haven't shown this to be the case of colour.
Telling american born people of color that they are from failed countries, that isn't racist?
Did he? Who did he say that about?
Pushing for the death penalty for innocent black teenagers. that isn't racist?
Many innocent whites are have been convicted and sentenced and executed. It wasn't because they were white, was it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
People had high hopes for Obama as well, but they were too early to judge him. You don't know the effects of many decisions until long after the president is gone.Case in point is the Nobel Peace Prize awarded before Obama actually did anything to earn it.
And did he ever do anything anyway?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Hence It is considered that Heli or Eli was the father of Mary whom was betrothed or married to Joseph.
I think we can safely say that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock:
"Joseph,son of David," he said, "don't be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because what has been conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 1:20. New International Version.
Mathew is forever pulling out his trusty Old Testament with the intention of making sure Jesus is the one referred to in the OT prophecy of Isaiah " a virgin will give birth"
Look!The virgin will conceive a child. She will give birth to a son and will call him Emmanuel”.Isaiah 7:14. I suppose we are going to be told that "Immanuel" (god is with us) actually meant Jesus back then
Those that believe this simply haven't read this so called prophecy for themselves, if they had done so, they would have read that this prophecy was not alluding to Jesus at all.
As the scriptures make it more than plain that the prophecy was meant to be filled in the time of King Ahaz. Clearly the boy alluded to has not reached maturity and further there are two other Old Testament passages that we will find in 2 Kings 15:29-30 and 2 Kings16:9 that will indeed confirm that this prophecy was fulfilled 800years before the birth of Jesus.
One simply has to ask: what good would this prophecy have been to King Ahaz had it really been about the birth of Jesus, and what good would it have done him in his hour of need if it referred to a Jesus/Immanuel 800 years into the future?
Neither Mark nor John have a thing to say about Jesus' bloodline or his miraculous birth of a "virgin". Odd that, me thinks considering that this was the king and saviour of the Jews - not Christians - the was born to free his people - the Jews - not Christians - from the Roman yoke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
There are other explanations as well.
I bet there are. It always helps to have a back hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
but it is not "apparently a sin," but it is a sin if one adds or takes away Jesus’ inspired words within the JUDEO-Christian Bible, and the ramifications thereof: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” (Revelation 22:18-19)
Indeed. And I could name a few strict theist members here that have condemned themselves to the hell-fires of Beelzebub for committing the sin of rewriting scripture to suit their narrative too.
In fact, when I have accused those guilty of adding and taking away from "prophecy of this book" , they have attempted to sweep my accusation away with a wave of the hand by to telling me words to the effect that - "it is only the book of the prophecy (revelation) that this curse applies to and not the entire content of book of the bible" . Yes, I know, absolutely mind blowing & astounding, isn't it Brother?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I will get back to you on this.
No need unless you feel the need to correct me on anything. I am just repeating what the Sumerians have to say on the ages and what the NT scriptures state.
I do know Jesus has to do with the fish symbolism and pisces.
As did Moses and the Ram/Aries.
I don't think so. Sumer was created during Taurus. This was the beginning of civilization. almost
Sumer may well have been, but they are writing about what happened at the "beginning of time" a time they called "the station of the fishes", not when Sumer and civilisation was created.
I am sure I have explained some of this to you before. But please take the time to read all of this post. You may find it interesting if not helpful.
I don't know if you are familiar with the NT scriptures but to get to the point: The High Priest and his underlings at the time of Jesus were placed in their position by the Romans as was the Monarchy (King Herod), they were puppets of Rome. And according to Jesus and many Jews, they were false priests that didn't understand "the signs of the age" as when we read:
16 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven [the skies].
2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
If they were not false priests, they would have understood perfectly what age they were in and what the "signs of the times" actually were and that the age was about to end. the transition from the Ram/Aries to the Fish/Pisces was indeed nigh.
Also Jesus repeatedly used the ambiguous phrase " it is written" but the bible never tells us where it is written, it is as if we - or at least those of his time - are expected to automatically know where "it is written".
The Bible never describes the inside of the Jerusalem Inner Temple Sanctuary for us, but historian Flavius Josephus does and in modern terms he describes nothing less than a celestial clock / a map of the skies/heavens.
And from what I have researched over many years and now firmly believe, it appears that it was not unlike the Zodiac that can be viewed today by anyone that has visited Hathor's Temple at Dendera Egypt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendera_zodiac#:~:text=The%20sculptured%20Dendera%20zodiac%20(or,and%20Libra%20(the%20scales).
In the first part, was partitioned off by a curtain. This curtain had also embroidered upon it all that was mystical in the heavens, excepting that of the signs,representing the twelve living creatures. There were three most wonderful famous works of art. A lamp-stand, table and altar of incense. The seven lamps branching off from the lamp-stand symbolized the planets; the twelve loaves. On the table were the Zodiac circle and the year. (Josephus the Jewish War). Excursus VI. Jerusalem and the Temple. Page 392. A New Translation. G.A.Williamson.
Interesting what Josephus says here ; "The seven lamps branching off from the lamp-stand symbolized the planets". I say interesting because this is how the Sumerians counted the planets; from the outside in earth is the seventh planet.
But I need a visual aid to decipher the rest.
Well you have to remember that the bible often tells us what has gone before will happen again. And how did they know this? Because the Sumerians were obsessed with record keeping. So again we can ask, how was Jesus able to tell his inner circle what signs to look for? The answer to that is simple, because he had seen & read the meticulous record keeping of his forefathers Adam and Enoch et al that came from that region as did Abraham of Ur thousands of years before Jesus even appeared on the scene.
can I suggest that you read Matthew 24:3. and look for the key word:
Matthew 24:3-8
3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, his disciples came to him privately and said, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” 4 Jesus answered them, “Watch out that no one misleads you. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will mislead many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars. Make sure that you are not alarmed, for this must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 For nation will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these things are the beginning of birth pains.
Ok , he may forgot to mention also volcanos erupting all over the place but I would say he was pretty well spot on. He wasn't a prophet at all. He was just a very good pupil that listened to his teachers. He could - FORCAST - these events because he had been privy to the records. And he was privy to these "mysteries of heaven" because he was a heir to the throne and only a true High Priest and true heir to the throne would know the "mysteries of the heavens".
Revelation picks up somewhat on these - forecasts - by adding a few other things such as the extortionate prices bastards will be charging for a loaf of bread on the black market during all of this heavenly & earthly turmoil . (Can one even say "black" market anymore without being fkn crucified?)
Where did he see these records? In Egypt at his training school built by an exiled Jew that went by the name of Onias. And this is also where he learned to read "the signs and mysteries of heaven". How do we know he went to Egypt? >>>>>> Matthew 2:13 “Get up! Flee to Egypt with the child [baby Jesus] and his mother". And we don't hear of him again until he is an adult of around 30 years of age. With just one exception where his mom and dad "lost" him for a few days when he was said to be 12, in Jerusalem, supposedly.
We cannot ever change or stop these natural disasters, they will keep happening while the world turns. When the planets move and change their positions in the heavens it simply effects the earth, pulling it all asunder, one way or the other way, this way and that way. The orbit of earth is not round, it is elliptical it has an apogee/nearest to, and an apogee/ furthest from. This causes Ice ages and and massive thaws , in other words climate change. we are going trough a climate change now but thick bastards think it is the fault of mankind. The ancients believed it to be gods wrath for something they hadn't done, maybe not kissed his arse enough times?
What we can change is the idea that when something happens "up there" we don't have to purposefully re-enact the chaos that is going on up there down here on earth. i.e. " thy will should not be done on earth as it is in the fkn heavens" , but repeat it willfully and purposefully, they do. In short, the out going house will not relinquish power and control to the incoming house without a war, it is that fkn simple. Just read your bible to see when all these heavenly transitions happened. They are easy to spot, and here's' a clue:
The maniacs believe that when every transitions approaches that they should go to war and butcher the incoming or out going members of that age "because it is written".
Jesus it appears, was hoping for a peaceful transition or at least talking about one.
This is happening right up to this day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
When one views the night sky, Aquarius is not so obvious.
That is because you see it in the morning (if indeed we are in the house of Aquarius).
The house or age that we are in only shows at sunrise and is the backdrop to the sun when it sits on the horizon first thing in the morning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I am unsure if aquarius is near the beginning, middle or end of the kali yuga,
Kali yuga aside, considering the amount of flooding the earth has been experiencing over the last twenty + years and it is not relenting but getting worse it seems we are in house Aquarius at the beginning of the 2160 zodiacal cycle.
Interesting that the Sumerians have this to say about their lords arrival here on earth.
“When I on earth arrived, the station that was ending by me the station of the Fishes was named.! “the one that followed after my name title, He of the Waters, I called”! Summer Tablet Seven.
"The station of the fishes [Pisces]" was the house of the Lord Ea/Enki. The "one that followed, [Aquarius]" was the house of his son Marduk.
It appears then that when the lords first came down here to earth the zodiac was at the station of Pisces/fish marking their arrival as the beginning of time for them and I suppose us too. I believe this is what Jesus was talking about when he told the world that he was "the first and the last" the beginning and the end the Alpha and Omega". He belonged to the house of the Fish. Once this has crossed over to the next house, he would become the last. Is this why there are many references to fish, fishes and fishermen in the NT, And the sign for Christians is the fish?https://www.google.com/search?q=and+the+sign+of+christians+is+the+fish&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB907GB907&sxsrf=ALeKk029g4ZeQQyksona-nN17457yKbZqQ:1601572338099&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPla3y8ZPsAhW3aBUIHZoSD_QQ_AUoAXoECBoQAw&biw=1536&bih=754
The NT is riddled with astrology and astronomy from beginning to end.
It would seem then that we are now in a new age and in the house /Zodiac of Aquarius and the lord Marduk is is second in line to rule over the earth. I wonder if Christians realise that their time is up and there is a new god on the block.
11 February 2013, Benedict unexpectedly announced his resignation; it is supposed to be a job until death.
And interestingly, according to tradition, when a Pope dies the papal apartments are sealed and the Pope's gold ring - known as the fisherman's ring - is smashed with a specially designed silver hammer .. "Objects strictly tied to the ministry of St Peter must be destroyed,"the Vatican says. But with Pope Benedict , the insignia on Benedict XVI's ring was merely scratched with a cross so that it can be kept for posterity in the Vatican museum".
The sign for Aquarius has always been a man pouring water over the earth>>>>
Created:
Posted in:
What does the bible say about being qualified to baptise someone?
Does the bible teach us the requirements that are needed that gives one authority to cleanse one of his or her sins as the baptist did?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Are we getting a debate of Trump vs. Harris?
Who knows? We may get a Harris debates Trump, at least I think that was the word I was looking for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If CNN is spending 95% of the airtime talking about Trump, they have next to no time left over to sell Biden.
All fair points GP. But c'mon man, you know the thing. Trumps advisers should teach him the art and the value of giving your opponent enough rope in these situations.
The Donald's mistake here was not letting Sleepy run his mouth. Imagine the gems we may have missed because of the interruptions from the greatest President the western world has ever known.
Was Sleepy wired?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Have you not heard of polygamy?
I have Vic.
It is said that Moses also married to a un-named Cushite (an African). It doesn't say if it was at the same time as he was married to the Midian (an Arab) but I suppose he was "knowing" her all the same as his sister & brother seemed to be a bit upset with him "knowing" this other woman. And this still leaves us with a father - in - law to spare.
Maybe our resident theist will be along soon to correct and or explain away the OP and any other seemingly biblical contradictions that have arose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ... 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, ... 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Is it at all possible that one author maybe referring to one actual father while another maybe referring to a father - in - law i.e. Mary's father? My wife used to call my old dad, dad. As do my daughters - in - law do call me . Maybe the title of father - in - law was taken more (legally) official and more literal in ancient times.
Although, the scriptures seem to indicate that Mary conceived before Joseph took her as a wife.
This all brings to mind apologist fanatic Eusebius who had this to say when confronted with this genealogical dilemma:
"each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages”. Eusebius, The History of the Church.
“to dilate”? One can only imagine translates as ‘who do you think you are looking at these genealogies with your eyes wide open’.Or ‘don’t allow your eyes to become too dilated, you may see the contradiction and know the truth’. It does beg the question as to why Matthew and Luke even took the time to add these genealogical lists to their gospels because they should instantly throw doubt (for the Christian)as to the divinity of Jesus and his very existence and renders them therefore pointless because we cannot after all, forget that Mary, Jesus’mother was a virgin, wasn’t she?
This reminds me of the confusion concerning the name of Moses' father - in - law.
Exodus 2:18 " And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day?"
It continues to tell us that Moses married one of Reuels' daughters _ Zipporah, making Reuel the father - in - law of Moses
But Exodus 3:1 appears to contradict this telling us " Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb".
And to throw more fire on these contradictory flames we read in Judges Judges 4:11 " Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The Bible Project on Proverbs:"The righteous are rewarded and the wicked are punished"...….. " you get what you deserve"[LINK]
Well not if we listen to Christians. According to Christians we are all punished ( because of the unfairness of gods law imo) even the "innocent and righteous" like Job. i.e. we
all die because someone else's misdeeds or "sins".
And not a single word about the loss of the life of his TEN! dear children who were also "innocent". Unless someone here can explain what it was they had done that was so "wicked" that they deserved to die on a wager. It appears that life- human life - is cheap to god and that humans are ten a penny, literally.
And hadn't the "accuser" Satan once been sentenced to "crawl on his belly eating dirt for the rest of his days" thousands of years before for leading the whole of mankind astray, (Genesis 3:14) yet here he is just " roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” (Job1: 7) making wagers with the Lord god Jehovah, himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
If you suggest it is just swearing at them or calling them names, prove it.
And I am not sure that I suggested anything at all as to what "cursing" in the bible means. Can you show me I have? BUT YOU! You have told us it means to threaten to kill ones parents and not bothered to offer a single piece of evidence for your claim.
Don't just bring in your 21st century contextualisation.
That's your sly and sneaky habit.
But I will give it a shot all the same. "cursing " in the biblical ( Leviticus 20: 9) sense has absolutely nothing to do with the threat to killing or the threat to murder of ones parents. No, it has to do with (no surprises) using the name of god whilst "cursing" one or both parents. You see it all comes back to your god and his ego and vanity and how fkn easily he gets upset!
"yet they enacted that the child only incurred the penalty of death when he used the ineffable name God when cursing his parent". _ Charles J Ellicott's Bible Commentary Volume I.
Charles John Ellicott was a distinguished English Christian theologian, academic and churchman. He briefly served as Dean of Exeter, then Bishop of the united see of Gloucester and Bristol, England.
Ok , now your turn. Where is your evidence that cursing in the bible as in ( Leviticus 20: 9) means " to threaten the death of the parent"? As you claim here>>" It is effectively a death threat" #26 ???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Jesus was a Jew. Hence he was more than likely a man of middle eastern descent.
Indeed, a man, a Jewish man. A man that believed he was rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem. king of the Jews, not Christians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Who cares. I want to know what class he was.
Royal elite, depending on whose gospel you are reading at the time.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Indeed Brother. Crickets from the man that oft proudly brags " I always support my claims with evidence".
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I answered your questions.
No you have simply offered a convoluted mishmash of obscure ancient lawful practice and conflated it with policing in the 21st century. Silly man.
There is no indication that this statute written refers to anyone but adults.
yes you have attempted to use this BS before by starting a thread on what the bible doesn't say, haven't you? here https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4785-does-god-demand-that-only-adult-animals-go-onto-the-ark?page=1
and that didn't work out too well either, did it?
I have - as I said in another place - accepted that the word "anyone" could possibly by some be interpreted to mean what you think it means. Yet, just because it might be interpreted that way by some - does not mean that it is what it means.
But it does mean "children" all the same doesn't it? No matter how much you attempt to determine it to mean a "child" of adult age and make believe that the "offence" actually means to threaten to kill ones parents. So again, it is something the scriptures doesn't even mention. This is what you have claimed >> " It is effectively a death threat" #26. Yet the only one issuing death threats towards anyone anywhere , is the threats your god clearly makes towards children!
Oh by the way - if cursing your mother and father is not tantamount to threats to kill, what is it? If you suggest it is just swearing at them or calling them names, prove it.
Asks the man that has the bad habit of contextualising the ancient with the modern. And believes asking a question of his own is somehow a answer to my initial question.
If you suggest it is just swearing at them or calling them names, prove it.
And I am not sure that I suggested anything at all as to what "cursing" in the bible means. Can you show me I have? No you can't can you? BUT YOU! You have told us it means to threaten to kill ones parents and not bothered to offer a single piece of evidence for your claim.
Don't just bring in your 21st century contextualisation.
That's your sly and sneaky habit.
But I will give it a shot all the same. "cursing " in the biblical ( Leviticus 20: 9) sense has absolutely nothing to do with the threat to killing or the threat to murder of ones parents. No, it has to do with (no surprises) using the name of god whilst "cursing" one or both parents. You see it all comes back to your god and his ego and vanity and how fkn easily he gets upset!
"yet they enacted that the child only incurred the penalty of death when he used the ineffable name God when cursing his parent". _ Charles J Ellicott's Bible Commentary Volume I.
Charles John Ellicott was a distinguished English Christian theologian, academic and churchman. He briefly served as Dean of Exeter, then Bishop of the united see of Gloucester and Bristol, England.
Ok , now your turn. Where is your evidence that cursing in the bible as in ( Leviticus 20: 9) means " to threaten the death of the parent"? As you claim here>>" It is effectively a death threat" #26 ???
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Would you kill your daughter or son if they "cursed " you, as the bible instructs and your god commands?"'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. ."Leviticus 20:9I think firstly this is talking about adult children. Not infants.
You don't know that but still, it is a command from the Old Testament god all the same. Or is this yet another attempt to create an argument around something the bible doesn't actually say?
I reject that the verse is talking about anything apart from ADULT Children.
Of course you do, because it shows your god in a extremely bad light but the bible makes it clear stating "anyone", and it odd that while you "reject" what the verse says you write the words "Adult children". I asked you would you do as your lord commands you to do to your "adult children" should they "curse" you?
Secondly, the intent of the statute in Leviticus is to protect the family unit.
And your evidence for that is what?
Even in our culture - we have maximum penalties for people found guilty of threating to kill.
There you go again, trying to somehow justify this barbaric command by contextualising it with the 21st century. That said we do have penalties for threats to kill , indeed just days ago a man was sentenced to 7 years for threatening to kill a family and firing shots into the air here in Manchester England. But do they command death because your "adult children" called you a shite and hopes you die?
If my children - as adults threatened to kill my wife - or cursed her in that sense - would amount to domestic abuse. In our culture - that is almost anathema these days - and it would hardly be up to me to make any decision.
But your god commands that you do and more than likely without hesitation.
- the police would become involved and they would insist upon the maximum penalty - whether they got it or not is a different matter.
Stop talking bollocks! Besides, they would only become involved if you decided that the police should be involved regardless of gods command on the issue. But again, you are attempting to contextualise the commands of your god with policing in the 21st century. This is nothing more than convoluted filibustering that has nothing to do with your scriptures or the commands of your god.
And me - if my adult children threatened to kill me or my wife - I would insist that the law be carried out.
Gods law?
And I must admire how you have turned cursing to threats of murder and carried on regardless of what the verse actually states by building your argument around something the bible doesn't actually make clear.
It is more or less attempting to practice a form of spiritual evil against them - pointing the bone as such - with the intent that their parents are to die. It is effectively a death threat.
Yes, like I have already noticed and mentioned, you have built your argument around what the bible doesn't say again, haven't you. As if this will somehow justify your gods barbaric command towards children, adult or otherwise.
I would also ask for mercy for them -
But the ruling is clear is it not.
But then again it would depend upon how serious their offence was against me or my wife.
Well we know the "offence " don't we? Its all to do with "cursing parents". You just keep trying to turn it all into a more serious "offence" about threats to murder parents. And we know why you do this too, don't we. You have to somehow worsen the actual "offence" to justify the penalty.
The other thing is which you always conveniently leave out [..................................] The law required a court hearing.
Yes and? What did I leave out of that very clear biblical command from god?. so they had a court hearing if it is found that the child had "cursed" the parents, then the penalty is death.
Here ya go: Leviticus 20: 9 “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head".
And then after the hearing the sentence if required was carried out - perhaps by the family. But nevertheless by proper authority.
For cursing the parents. Yes I know. barbaric isn't it?
it was court convened and proper legal justice - with judges.
Yes and sticklers for the Mosaic /Judaic law. I KNOW!
Tradesecret wrote : "What I do think is that when God kills infants it is justified" #14
You keep missing this>>>Could you give us a few examples of "god justifiably" killing infants and explain these actions that you believe justifies god to commit infanticide?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Jeffrey Lord was an Election Night Pundit on CNN during the 2016 Elections lol. ...................
Well its al lost on me. Maybe its because I'm English
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't have to justify anything to you or to anyone
Well that is simply because you can't justify anything concerning your - scriptures, your faith or your god.
But you must be confused as to what I have asked SO, , because you have said this last paragraph here #14: >" I do think is that when God kills infants it is justified ....".<
I have simply asked you for examples of god justifiably killing infants and to explain why your examples show that god is justified to commit infanticide?
I didn't ask you to justify his infanticidal actions.
And you have missed this AGAIN!
Would you kill your daughter or son if they "cursed " you, as the bible instructs and your god commands?
"'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. ."Leviticus 20:9
Created:
In our modern world we justify the murder of millions of unborn babies on the basis that it is inconvenient to some.But we are talking biblical aren't we?No you are.
Go to post #1 And stop being silly. THIS IS BIBLICAL>>>>>>> What should we make of the passover and God killing his people's first born kids?
Author:n8nrgmi,1 day ago.
As for what the muslims do, I can hardly care because ......
What Muslims do is exactly the same as you do when it comes to the defence of your god AND HIS UNJUSTIFDE infanticide You simply commit to defending the indefensible at all costs and go all out to excuse the barbarity of his murderous actions against defenseless infants.
AND THIS IS BILICAL>>>> we are talking biblical aren't we? We are talking about a god that loves us aren't we? A god that tells us to turn the other cheek and orders _ "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God" _.
And you have missed this AGAIN! :
What I do think is that when God kills infants it is justified - and that it is never random.
Could you give us a few examples of "god justifiably" killing infants and explain these actions that you believe justifies god to commit infanticide?
Would you kill your daughter or son if they "cursed " you, as the bible instructs and your god commands?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
The biblical mythologies justify everything for some people.Advanced species hey?We haven't really left the cave.Whatever do you mean by such a broad and generalised statement?In our modern world we justify the murder of millions of unborn babies on the basis that it is inconvenient to some.
But we are talking biblical aren't we? We are talking about a god that loves us aren't we? A god that tells us to turn the other cheek and orders _ "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God" _. Stop trying to contextualise vile actions of an ancient god with the 21st century practices of modern man. Muslims do this persistently to excuse and justify the vile commands of Muhammad and Allah.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
We haven't really left the cave.
Not while we have people such as Tradesecret holding extremist beliefs such as :
Tradesecret wrote : "What I do think is that when God kills infants it is justified" #14
He hasn't explained if he would do as they did in ancient times and kill infants on gods commands. I would expect him to swerve such a question as this would challenge his faith and his beliefs as it did so here in my little spat with another member who believes god is justified in committing infanticide.#133
This ended up with him challenging me first to prove "evil exists" as if this somehow answered my simple question: and then saying words to the effect that - "I haven't been in that position , so I wouldn't know what I would do' - although he believes in the bible and has a faith in a god, a god which makes it perfectly clear and plain a day what he should do if his daughter "cursed him".
"'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. ."Leviticus 20:9
He seemed completely oblivious to the fact that he was being challenged on what he fkn believes in and the scriptures he holds faith in , and that it had nothing to do with what I believe .
Side note:
The bible makes it clear that evil exists. Isn't this why Christians ask the lord to "deliver us from evil". If it doesn't exist then there is no need of god / Jesus because there isn't any evil to deliver us from, is there?
And incidentally, the word evil appears in the entire Bible 613 times in 569 verses in 343 chapters in 60 books. The word evildoer appears 2 times and evildoers appears 12 times in the KJV Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
BLM Website Hoped No One Noticed They Deleted The Call For The Destruction Of The Nuclear Family.
"If you were to go to the Black Lives Matter’s official website recently you would see this in the “What We Believe” section: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”
The original line on the matter of the said "destruction" of the nuclear family was alleged to have been :
"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable".
Whatever could have caused such a drastic change of policy!?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
People in the West today are thrown into prison when they are disloyal to the state.
Just so we are clear define "state" .
What I do think is that when God kills infants it is justified - and that it is never random.
Could you give us a few examples of "god justifiably" killing infants and explain these actions that you believe justifies god to commit infanticide?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
what should we make of the passover and God killing his people's first born kids?
It was a violent act of willfully intended murder. If the story is true at all.
God said that all the first borns in Egypt would die, including the israelites, unless they sacrificed a lamb and smeared the blood on their door frame.what was the purpose of this?
Some kind of ritual of immunity from the vile plague sent by god to murder all 1st born. The bible makes that clear too.
is it cool for God to kill in such a random way because of inherited sin?
Well this particular instance the bible is clear, god killed because Pharaohs "heart was hardened and " inherited sin" wasn't even mentioned. This is complicated by the fact that the bible also makes clear that it was god that caused Pharaohs heart to be hardened in the first place, who knows what would have happened had god not intervened at this crucial point? . So it appears that Pharaoh didn't have a choice. It was all caused by god and his willingness to just kill when there maybe wasn't a need to kill anyone, at all , particularly children. It looks like god wanted to justify his own murderous conscience by giving himself a reason to kill children and do away with the next generation of Egyptians.
"And >>>>>> I <<<<<< will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh"..... Exodus 14:4.
Now one of a few things is going to happen here: we will be told that ' I have taken the whole story completely out of context ' and or it will be argued that Pharaoh had a choice & free will, although neither of these weak & feeble explanations and attempts to justify the unjustifiable are simply not true. The bible also makes that clear too.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is this a Callout thread? Let me go consult with the moderators.
Bullet point two, maybe?
Harassment
- Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at your behest. This includes wishing or hoping that someone and/or their loved ones experiences physical harm.
- Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment, as does obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges. However, criticising statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game.
- Threats of lawsuits are not allowed, and by using this site you agree to waive any rights to file civil suits against fellow site users for any non-criminal actions.
- If a member politely requests that you leave them alone, do so. Repeated failure to comply, is a clear aggravating factor regarding the content of said posts.
Created: